Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

"You can doubt me if you want, doesn't matter to me, but Terry over at Real World Trade in Values is the acknowledged "final source" about car values. "

It ultimately depends on the dealer for trade in values, However, many of the dealers in my area advertise Kelly Blue Book pricing for your trade in. Based on that data, the 2004 GTO is worth $4k more then 2004 Stang as a trade in. So far KBB did NOT have 2005 Data yet. Not many people are trading in 2005 cars yet.

RX8 is pretty nice, Not sure that like those suicide doors in the back, kind of detracts from the car's styling in my opinion.

I would trade the 330i in a heartbeat for a New Mustang or GTo, once 330i was at the end of it's lease or warranty. BMW, break my wallet. Went thru that with a used 540

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

"Yep, I remember. Of course, the initial buying frenzy died down pretty quickly with the '04 GTO's"

True. GM helped to kill 2004 GTO sales when the announced a few months later that the 2005 would be improved with 50 more hp, hood scoops, better rear fascia/exhaust, bigger brakes, etc. The 2005 MSRP was the same as the 2004.

So why buy a 2004 GTO then? Unless you already did.

Thanks GM.

BTW, the 2006 GTO is near identical to 2005, just 2 new colors, 2 colors retired, rear tailights semi darkened and 1 or 2 other minor things.

graphicguy · August 2005

My RX8 was wonderful. It's wasn't nearly as fast as either a GTO nor a Mustang GT, but it was probably the best handling car I had ever driven.

I'm fortunate enough that I've got two cars (actually 3 cars if I include the car my son drives) I use for different purposes. If I need to "haul" people around, I use my 4Runner (which is also used for offroad and snow duty). It's not often I used the RX8 for people duty, because it was still a bit claustrophobic in the back seat, regardless of the back doors. The Mustang's back seat is even worse.

Winding out that rotary to 9K RPMs was a thrill. Of course, the sound of a V8 with a proper exhaust (like both the Mustang and the GTO possess) is a thrill in itself.

Eventually, the demand for the Mustang GT will level off. I don't know when that might be, but it will happen. From what we can tell so far, '06s GT orders are as strong, or stronger, than the '05 GT. It doesn't sound like Ford is going to rest on their backsides with the Mustang, though. They've got the limited production GT500 hitting next year. From all I've read, they'll follow that up with a Mach, BOSS or Bullitt version shortly thereafter.

I'm very interested in what Pontiac is going to do with the '08 GTO. I know the styling that's been floated in the press has been somewhat polarizing, but I happen to like it.

Lot's of talk about an updated Camaro or Firebird, but there are a lot of hurdles GM has to overcome to get that to market. Plus, they have to build it in Canada based on the agreement they have with the Canadian gov't to resurrect that nameplate. That alone really restricts what GM can do.

I'd love to see a new one, though. Competition is always good and should propel everyone who wants in the segment to improve.

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

I wasn't too thrilled with one of the 2008 GTO concept cars, I saw. It stood out more, but was almost borderline ugly?

It would have been nice if GM could have offered the new 505hp LS7 Z06 motor as an option in the GTO along with revised suspension/brakes/perf. package next year to compete with the GT500! Oh well. On the bright side, GM will be selling the LS7 as a crate motor, but for a lot of $$.

One of the problems with th Fbody was no intermediate models. It was either the BASE V6 200hp model or top of line 300-350hp V8. It would be nice if they brought it back.

graphicguy · August 2005

GM has always been a little skittish about offering their flagship LS motors in anything but the 'vette. It's not that GM hasn't done it, but I get the distinct impression that they aren't fond of doing it.

I believe that the LS2 in an '08 GTO would suffice, although as you say, the LS7 would be better.

I'd have to see the '08 GTO in the flesh, but I think they're moving in the right direction. Changes are always made to the styling as production gets closer.

Slotting a Camaro/Firebird with a 6 cyl option (as well as the LS2 for an SS version) could do nothing but help GM. It wouldn't be too far fetched to think they could sell 150,000 of them.

I also think if the revised GTO for '08 was brought to the states to be built, GM could sell 50,000 of those. Seeing how it's got to be expensive to bring the car over from Aussy land, and given the fact that GM is going to their "total value pricing" for '06, you'd have to think they could bring the GTO in at under $30K for '08. That alone would boost sales.

The "sweet spot" for the market seems to be in that $25K-$28K price range, as the Mustang has shown. While I'm not saying a $31K-$32K price point for a GTO is a deal breaker for most of us, there seems to be an invisible barrior once you break into the 30s for any car.

Kind of strange, but most wouldn't think twice about spending $30K+ for a tarted up SUV with poor MPG, but ask them to spend that same amount for a performance car, and the market dries up.

For what it's worth, I do think that the Mustang and GTO are the two best performance car bargains on the planet right now.....better than a 350Z, even better than a Boxter.

rorr · August 2005

"Slotting a Camaro/Firebird with a 6 cyl option (as well as the LS2 for an SS version) could do nothing but help GM. It wouldn't be too far fetched to think they could sell 150,000 of them."

And perhaps their 5.3l motor from the GXP for a Z28 edition. IMO (to get back to their roots), the Z28 should be set up as their 'handling' car (with weight reduction a priority) suited more for canyon carving with the SS edition set up for street-light brawls. So, the LS2 would work great for a SS edition.

Of course, I have NO idea what the relative weight differences might be between drivetrains based on the 5.3l and 6.0l motors. :confuse:

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

I'm sure someone will drop a GM Crate LS7 505hp into their GTO, just a matter of time. It will be expensive though.

The problem with a new Camaro/Transam is that GM is going to have to try to drop the price on their V8 models. If I recall some of the top of the line Fbody's WS6, Firehawk, were almost $34k MSRP in 2002. GTO same price or cheaper and is light years ahead in refinement, build quality, etc.

Funny you mentioned the SUV thing. My friend with a newish Pathfinder and an newish V8 Explorer always aks me why I bought a gas guzzler like my A4 GTO with the rise of gas prices, yet he doesn't realize that it gets same or BETTER gas mileage then his SUV's. Makes me laugh.

I cross-shopped the G35 coupe and came close to buying it because of longer 4yr 60k bumper to bumper, loaner cars for even oil change, great cust service etc, then Ford or Pontiac, but Decided against it because I needed a backseat, that backseat was really useless and The 280hp, now 300hp V6 didn't feel like the Mustang or GTO's motors.

Right now Mustang or GTO for bargains. Mustang is cheapest 300hp car, GTO is cheapest 400hp car out there ! Don't forget about the Grand Prix GXP/Monte carlo SS/Impala SS with 303hp for under $30k. They are good for about 6 seconds, not bad! My GXp is quite quick. Too bad the pwr is going to the wrong wheels.

rorr · August 2005

"Too bad the pwr is going to the wrong wheels."

And the fact that they are ONLY available with slushboxes. And not exactly the most nimble things on the road today.....

sigh

Why can't we just have more simple, tossable, RWD stickshift cars capable of seating 4 real people?

graphicguy · August 2005

While we're on the topic, rorr...I like the thought of 5.3L in a Z28 makes a lot more sense than putting it in a FWD GXP. I also like the thought of an LS2 in a version of an SS (and GTO). While, true, no one really knows how the weight of those motors would affect driving dynamics, given GM's engineering work on the 'vette, I'd have to think they could offset any weight penalties of the motor in other areas of the car.

I'm real sensitive about weight of cars given my experience with the RX8. Even with a 238HP rotary, the low center of gravity and the weight reductions made a lot of difference in the "tossability" of the RX8....and in turn....the "fun to drive" quotient.

Mustang and GTO are fun to drive, too....just in different ways.

gxp....my 4Runner (6cyl) gets about 18 MPG in town and 22 MPG on the highway. The Mustang gets about the same MPG overall...maybe a little better on all highway duty (unless I constantly keep my foot in it). I hit 24 MPG on the Mustang on a trip to the KY Derby. I would imagine the GTO would do the same.

The RX8 actually got worse MPG than the Mustang....plus it required premium fuel.

I'm in a small 'burg outside of Cincinnati and live on a cul de sac. Most people are driving SUVs and most of them have V8s. One neighbor has a Navigator. Kids are out of the house, so it's just he and his wife. He brow beats me all the time for buying the "gas guzzler" Mustang GT. I just chuckle to myself knowing he's lucky to get 15 MPG in the Navigator.

That said, I'm one of the youngest people in the neighborhood (40s). Most are a decade older than I am and like not only SUVs, but the biggest SUVs that you can find....couple of Escalades, the afore mentioned Navigator, one Lexus GX (which is mighty close in look/feel to my 4Runner but with a V8).

I'm the one who gets the "stares" in the neighborhood for driving a Mustang. Go figure!

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

"And the fact that they are ONLY available with slushboxes. And not exactly the most nimble things on the road today..... "

True, but I guess it's the American way. 85% of cars here are bought with slushboxes. 50% of GTO sales are slushboxes. I went with a slushbox because of the traffic where I live. Auto GTO is faster then manual shift one 0-60 and 1/4. Not sure on Mustang stats? Anyone? I heard that 65% of stang were slushbox, that includes the V6 model, etc.

graphicguy · August 2005

I've yet to see a mix of automatics vs manuals for the Mustangs. My guess would be the V6 models got the majority of automatic tranny's, though. Although, I've heard some other members of the Mustang boards with automatics on theri GTs, the vast majority seem to be manuals.

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

I want to see how those trannies hold up in the FWD 5.3L V8 W bodies. They were maxed out with the 260hp/280 torque 3800 V6. GM said they beefred them up further, but time will tell

My GTO is an automatic, because of traffic here and most of our driving is in stop and go town so we only get about 13-14mpg on GTO. Slightly heavy footed too! When we took a 100 mile trip on the highway we got about the EPA rated 21 mpg at a steady 65-70mph. I'm used to paying for prem. fuel, most of my cars over the years have required it. You can run GTO on reg. 87, but I wouldn't.

I live in the suburbs right out of NY city, we have a mix of cars, Suv's etc. We are among the youngest as well, early 30's. My neighbor brow beated me for buying the GTO, because we have a 2 1/2 yr old son. This is the same guy whose kids are all 17 and older and just bouht a minivan, go figure? To each their own. Minivan is NOT in my vocabulary. ha!

rorr · August 2005

Oh I'm quite well aware of what the large % of the population wants - it's just not necessarily what I want. Most people also want either a white, silver, or beige car too. Not me. The 'American way' also seems to preach that 'bigger' is always 'better'. I don't necessarily believe this to be so.

I just want a relatively simple, RWD, tossable, manual tranny car that can seat 4 normal humans.

For me personally, the GTO is a bit too expensive, too heavy (not tossable by my standards), and has somewhat more power than I really need. The Mustang seems more suited to me but even my 6 year old felt cramped in the back seat and climbing in/out was a chore for her so it's a no sale too. I'm kinda leaning towards an RX8 but given the amount of grunt from it's engine, I would really expect better mileage from that car. A BMW 3-series would be nice but I just can't justify that kind of coinage unless it was a nearly stripped 325. Plus I'm a little gun-shy around German cars from past family history with a couple of Audi's.

I guess I need to just accept that there is no 'perfect' car and move on.....

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

I don't like white, silver or beige cars either. I got the impulse blue metallic on GTO, looks blue to purplish depending on time of day the angle you see it at, it has the nice 2 tone, Bermuda blue seats and black/blue panels on the interior. handling is good enough for me. I'm sue there is far better. It's also comfortable too. They make a nice eibach setup for GTO which really improves handling. I had a BMW, very expensive once that warranty runs out. German quality has fallen to the same or worse then US standards from what I have read.

graphicguy · August 2005

I remember those days all too well when it was important to have 4 doors to fit the "kiddy" seat in the back. Don't miss them at all.

My son is now 19 and drive a 3 year old Hyundai Elantra (surprisingly nice little cars that's proven to be cheap to own and very reliable) back and forth the school/work (still lives at home). There's not a day that goes by he doesn't ask to drive the Mustang. As of yet, he's not done anything other than to sit in the Mustang while it's in the garage.

For whatever reason, red and blue seem to be my color choices. gxp....that IBM with the blue interior would have been my first choice in a GTO. Very nice! I also liked the sliver with red interior. My RX8 was "winning blue" and my Mustang is redfire metalic. I'm not a white, brown, yellow or green "person" when it comes to car colors. While not meaning to offend, I think the windevil blue of the Mustang is a bit effeminite....so I don't care for that one.

While I've had my share of sports cars in the past, including a 280Z, 300Z, MGB GT (personally restored) and a '67 GTO (personaly restored), I've also had a couple of BMWs. Both were 3 series. Both were a nightmare to maintain from a $$$$ perspective.

An autox chum has a Mini Cooper S. It's carried on the tradition of being less than reliable. He's worried what the costs will be like once the warranty period is up, also. Fun cars, but I don't think I could live with it on a daily basis.

Benz quality has been widely reported as dropping percipitously, also. I've never been a fan of Audis (not enough power for the amount of $$$$ you spend on them).

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

The IBM GTO is the ONLY GTO that comes with the blue bermuda interior seats and inserts. Other cars only have all black or red.

Redfire metallic is nice on stang, I also like the Sonic Blue too, maybe similar to my IBM on GTO?

It's a pain to get my 2.5 yr old son in the GTO only because of the slow seat motors, which has supposedly been improved for 2006. But it's well worth it to us. I'd rather struggle with that then drive a minivan. :P

My father in law now deceased had a lot of restored cars, 1958, 1959, 1960 and 1966 Corvettes. We personally have a 1957 Chevy which he restored. Also had modified 1986 442, 1985 Monte SS in HS, etc.

We considered the Mini Cooper S, but as soon as I saw it in person, SMALL. Didn't even drive it, way too small, esp. with all the SUV on road.

gottabgto · August 2005

I know - some of them are downright psycho.
The chances some of these guys will take - well - they can have it, ya know.
Just not worth it.
It's like - okay dude - you're bad - your Acura (or Honda, whatever) is so much faster than my car. And don't hit that pedesterian while you're proving it.

sputterguy · August 2005

Dropping an LS7 into a GTO? Believe me, I have thought of it. There's just no way in the world I could justify the expense though.

graphicguy · August 2005

gottab....the "fast & furious" crowd with the Hondas/Acuras pose more of a safety issue when I'm in the 'Stang. Since I'm in my 40s, I suppose they think it's "cute" to try to get me to run them. Mostly, I don't. But, every once in a while when they are blocking my lane or trying to keep me from changing lanes, I have to punch it.

They view that as an invitation to race when all I'm trying to do is to either get in front of them or behind them so I can get to where I'm trying to go.

Funny thing is, most of them have more money tied up in their spoilers than their entire car is really worth.

Mostly, it's not worth the effort, though.

Interestingly, I think the F-bodies, Mustangs and GTOs (throw in the 'vette) owners don't much try to street race around here. At best, we give a "head nod" when we come up on each other on the street....sometimes even a thumbs up.

sputter....if I wanted an LS7, I'd just buy it in a Z06. It wouldn't make much sense from a financial perspective to drop one in any other car. I'm sure someone...somewhere will do it, though.

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

".if I wanted an LS7, I'd just buy it in a Z06. It wouldn't make much sense from a financial perspective to drop one in any other car"

Actually no, a Gto with LS7 conversion would cost you much Less then a Z06. Isn't a 2006 Z06 LS7 nearly $65k-$75k range? I still don't think Chevy has released official pricing yet, just speculation. Then take your current LS2 and sell it. GM will be selling the crate LS7 soon.

vppreacher · August 2005

On the GTO, IBM with the blue interior is very nice. I seriously considered the Windveil Blue Stang, but the only interior I thought looked good was the Light Graphite. And I didn't like that interior with the IUP Package (BIG improvement over the stock interior).

I've always liked silver and its amazingly ability to always look clean, so I ended up going with Satin Silver on the exterior and Dark Charcoal on the interior. I've added a bunch of MGW interior chrome accessories and it's really heightened the look and contrast. Now, I need to throw on the Stang's Eibach Pro-System Plus Kit. I'm assuming the GTO has a similar total kit. I know it makes a huge difference in the Stang's handling while maintaining decent ride quality.

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

Yes the GTO has a Eibach system kit also to improve handling, not sure on the price though. Satin Silver is nice.

vppreacher · August 2005

Anybody else watch the Speed Channel Test? No surprise the GTO did best the Mustang, but what really astonished me was how low both of their numbers were. 6 second 0-60 times for both? 14 sec 1/4 mile times for both? Something doesn't seem right here or is it just me? :confuse: Here is a summary:

1/4 Mile
GTO 13.92
Mustang 14.31

0-60
GTO 6.00
Mustang 6.18

Road Course
GTO 42.93
Mustang 43.02

Slalom Course
GTO 60.83
Mustang 60.66

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

Yeah there numbers were a bit slower then the auto mags. Car and Driver got 4.8 for GTO and 5.1 for Mustang. Could have been the weather, altitude, or cars/mileage.

graphicguy · August 2005

vp....I also like that silver with the charcoal interior with IUP...very sharp indeed.

Those are terrible numbers from Speed Channel....with either car.

I've seen amatuers at the track run better numbers around here.

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

I know this if off topic, New Society of Automotive Engineers standards designed to eliminate subjective interpretation in establishing horsepowe claims. Turns out under these new tests Toyota & Honda are now LOWERING their Horsepower claims. V6 Camry goes from 210 to 190 !! RL goes from 300hp to 290hp. http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0508/17/A01-283759.htm

However, as for as I know the american cars all stayed the SAME or increased. The article doesn't show any decreasing. Caddy XLR increased 29hp! Some pontiacs gained 1hp. Z06 vette gained 5hp, but I think it was already rated at 505hp anyway.

Wondering if the GTO is now 405hp? Time will tell. Also wondering what the Mustang is, probably higher then 300. It was rumored it was closer to 320 mark anyway.

rorr · August 2005

I also read that many of the domestic manufacturer's weren't going to go through the process of re-rating their engines unless they were new for the '06 model year. Whereas Honda/Toyota took it upon themselves to re-rate their engines.

IOWs - I don't know that it is 'mandatory' for manufacturer's to re-rate ALL of their lineups; only those new for '06 and beyond.

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

The Domestics followed all the mandates and rules of re-rating what they had to and etc for this new SAE test procedure.

Honda/Toyota kind of had to take it upon themselves to Re-rate their engines being as though quite a few are producing 5 to 20 less hp then they claimed !! Not exactly too good. That would be like finding out my GTO was only really making 380hp.

rorr · August 2005

"That would be like finding out my GTO was only really making 380hp."

What difference would it make?

I mean if you were happy with the performance when it was rated at 400 hp (I assume you ARE happy with the performance), what possible difference would it make if the 'actual' number was 380hp? Or 450hp? Or 1000hp? Are you driving a NUMBER? Did you buy it because the 1st significant digit was a "4" instead of a "3"?

Who knows; maybe you did.

vppreacher · August 2005

I agree with gxpgtodanman. At least for me, It isn't an issue of caring about my car's exact horsepower. I do think manufacturers should honestly and accurately represent their products. If they are using standards or a system which overestimates their products performance, than they should be made to correct it or be held liable. This premise has been proven legally throughout the past over many products....Palms, computer monitors, and music come immediately to mind as examples.

graphicguy,
thanks for the kind words. I'm going with the Retro-Industrial look for my Mustang...

Interior = Lots of aluminum, black leather/plastic/vinyl, and a dash of sweet, sweet chrome from MGW.
Performance = LOTS of mods
Exterior = Eibach Pro-Kit Plus, 18" Konig Beyonds with tires to be decided, Charcoal Grey Shelby stripes

Put all those together and you have my Uber-Stang (Along with a lot of credit card debt, good-natured harassment from my marital unit, and a permanent grin on my face.) :shades:

rorr · August 2005

I guess I didn't make my point clear; s'okay. I'm used to it.

Yes, hp rating are important in that it gives me an idea of what kind of performance to expect and (together with vehicle weight) I can use it to narrow down possible purchase candidates.

But I don't BUY the car based on it's hp rating. What that rating is may get me to test a car, but I buy based on how the car feels when I'm driving it.

And re-rating a car from 400 down to 380 (or up to 450) wouldn't change how the car drove one iota. So, from that standpoint, why should I care? If I was happy with the performance at 400, why should I suddenly feel 'gyped' if the rating was 380? What possible good would it be if it were re-rated at 450hp? The only good I see is for bragging rights, pure and simple.

vppreacher · August 2005

I wouldn't care from a performance standpoint, but I would from a consumer's view. If the vehicle got rated up, I could care less.

graphicguy · August 2005

On my beloved RX8, I went through the whole HP "restatement" thing. It was supposed to have 247 HP. Mazda had to do some last minute "retuning" of the ECM since there was some question whether the cat converters would last at the 247 HP level. Mazda actually offered to buy the car back. This was for the first 5K units they shipped over here from Hiroshima.

At first, I was livid and thoroughly planned to sell it back to Mazda. But, as most of you say, it didn't really affect the performance of the car. Plus, it's true, you can't drive a number on paper. I liked it when I test drove it and didn't know it had 9 less HP. So, I kept it. I think only 150 people actually sold their RX8s back to Mazda. The rest of us took Mazda's offer of $500 and free maintenance for the life of the 4 year warranty (which was worth another $500).

I know that Ford went through a similar PR nightmare when the Cobra's HP was overstated a few years back.

Fact is, if you test drove a car and liked it, does it really make any difference if the HP was over/under stated? In my case, no.

vp....it sounds like you're "uber-Mustang" is going to be nice. I used to do some bracket racing in the past. I've never been much into doing purely cosmetic mods, but have seen some beautiful '05 Mustangs that did very nice jobs "customizing" their 'Stangs. On the other hand, I've seen some hideous ones, too. When I was racing, I always prided myself in the fact that the mods I did still allowed me to take the same car off the track and street it (with nothing more than a tire change). The cars usually looked like hell, but were fast as greased lightening.

That was before I had a wife (now ex) and a kid (now grown). I still hang with some of the friends I'd met when racing. I still go to Mid-Ohio every May for those events. Every once in a great while, I want to mechanically "mod" the 'Stang. But, I have a golfing buddy, who's a General Manager at a Pontiac, GMC, Buick dealership once tell me that every mod anyone does to any car always detracts from its value when it's time to sell. So, I just don't do it anymore.

gottabgto · August 2005

Imo, the issue would be that they misrepresented the vehicle - and I personally would have a problem with that.
It basically amounts to false advertising.

rorr · August 2005

"It basically amounts to false advertising."

In regards revised hp ratings due to new SAE standards, why?

What if the SAE revised the rules so that all hp ratings were based on hp at the drive wheel (measured from a chassis dyno under strict testing methodology rather than an engine dyno) so that drivetrain losses where accounted for? Some manufacturer's probably have more efficient tranny's and diffs than other so they would see less of a drop in hp as measured at the wheel.

Would this mean the other manufacturer's had 'misrepresented' the engine output?

Has ANYONE (with any reputation) insinuated that manufacturers were NOT following the old regulations and/or falsifying the test results? I haven't read this. What I have read is that there were sections of the old SAE testing methodology which were open to interpretation. Some manufacturers interpreted the method one way, others a different way. In an efford to eliminate the gray areas, the SAE rewrote the testing methodology.

Put it this way: when the SAE went from the old "gross hp" rules in the 60's to the "net hp" rules in the early 70's, do you think the revised hp numbers would have been grounds for 'false advertising'?

graphicguy · August 2005

gottab....I think manufacturer's always give themselves an "out" by stating they reserve the right to change specs, options, etc.

To me, I still loved the car I bought (RX8). Did I feel like I was "misled" about the RX8's HP? Yeah, initially! But, the car I bought didn't change, just the ratings. I can see both sides to this. In Mazda's case, I felt they went beyond what I expected in offering to buy the car back for a total refund, or what I chose, $500 and free maintenance.

That said, there's a reason Mazda is the only company with a rotary engine. I think it makes a great racing motor. It's real simple (my rotary had only 9 moving parts). Both GM and Chrysler looked at the rotary decades ago and decided against using it as a production engine. I think GM actually built a prototype car using a rotary.

Ford went through the HP debacle a while back with the Cobra. I do think they offered their owners either an engine rebuild (to hit the advertised HP).

Overall, I do believe different cars with the same engine, will have minute differences in HP just for the mere fact that, although tollerances are much tighter today, there will still be some variances.

When I was test driving both GTOs and Mustangs, my seat of the pants told me that some were "strong" runners, and some felt like they were down on power from what I expected. That tells me there were some variances just from those experiences. They weren't significant differences, but differences, nonetheless.

I bet you could dyno two different GTOs or Mustangs and not be able to hit the same HP figure identically. So, it's probably a moot point.

If the rating rules change, then it's reasonable to expect that the ratings themselves would change.

mparis1 · August 2005

Muscle Car Review magazine August 2005 gets 0-60 in 4.8 sec quarter mile at 13.3 106 mph........wow...this cannot be true. Has anybody seen this article ? :surprise:

Shelby cobra? are dealers taking orders? are they out yet? is literature out yet?

are automaticcs available?
anybody seen this magazine??

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

"What if the SAE revised the rules so that all hp ratings were based on hp at the drive wheel (measured from a chassis dyno under strict testing methodology rather than an engine dyno) so that drivetrain losses where accounted for"

I think they should revise the HP ratings so they are HP at the drive wheels with all installed accesories operating. That is the only TRUE hp rating. Front wheel drive cars will have a slight advantage because they lose less through drivetrain. It also depends on the tranny too etc.

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

"Muscle Car Review magazine August 2005 gets 0-60 in 4.8 sec quarter mile at 13.3 106 mph........wow...this cannot be true. Has anybody seen this article ?"

Haven't seen it yet, but If that is true, those are the same 0-60 and 1/4 mile numbers Car and Driver got on the 2005 GTO in it's February issue. 4.8 and 13.3

vppreacher · August 2005

graphicguy,
I don't plan to do any serious racing, but I will be periodically "dyno"ing and running the car at a local track. I'm a newb to both of these performance pastimes...all I know is what I've read over the past 6 months, so I'm anxious to try it. Most of my mods this year will be interior stuff (MGW's line is fantastic methinks!) and some bolt ons. Next year will be the painted stripes and S/C...patience is a fiscal virtue. Overall though, my mustang will be a daily driver, so I'm waiting to see what the stock engine can handle.

I agree that mods most likely will reduce the car's value, but I plan on running this car until it gives up the ghost. All of the body kits look horrid to me. How someone could like nonfunctional, taped hood, side, and rear window scoops is beyond me......guess I'm getting old.

For those interested in the 2005, for 10$ I just picked up a hardbound edition of "Mustang 2005: A New Breed Of Pony Car" by Matt Lorenzo. Interesting and surprising read...

graphicguy · August 2005

vp....my dealer gave me that book by Lorenzo when I ordered my 'Stang this past winter. Apparently, he bought a whole case of them and gave them out to the folks who ordered from his first allotment of cars.

Neat book. Really in-depth on the engineering and design process with good interviews about both from Tang and Colleti.

Good luck on your mods. The one thing the Mustang lends itself well to is "modding".

rorr · August 2005

"I think they should revise the HP ratings so they are HP at the drive wheels with all installed accesories operating. That is the only TRUE hp rating."

Amen to that.

It would also be interesting to see the difference between the hp at the wheel for manual tranny equipped cars vs. their automatic counterparts. But I don't expect to see this in my lifetime.

I see such a method as a HUGE headache for the manufacturer's. Consider if the GTO had a driven wheel hp rating of 350hp. Then EVERY (or nearly every) GTO owner would be running down to their local speedshop and paying for a dyno pull to see if they were actually getting the advertised hp.

Can you imagine the fits everyone would be thowing when their muscle car wasn't giving the 'promised' results?

If we were to get some sort of driven wheel hp ratings, I imagine they would be like EPA mileage ratings: "Projected hp is 350. Your hp may vary".

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

Speaking of sales. The 1989 Fox Body Mustang sold nearly 200k cars too. Same as this 2005. However by 1991, Mustang sales DECLINDED to 85k.

Ford almost replaced the Mustang with a new Front Drive Car. A study team, led by Coletti, was formed in 1989 to develop a business plan to see if a new Mustang could be developed in less than four years for $700 million. An all-new car was out of the question, Coletti says.

1974 Mustang sold almost 400k copies !!

rorr · August 2005

Yep. The original Ford Probe was actually slated to be the new 'Mustang'.

Fortunately, the powers-that-be in Dearborn didn't like the image of their bodies hanging from lampposts (ala a certain Italian dictator ca. 1945) so they canceled the idea of whacking the old rwd Mustang a favor of a 'Mustang Lite'.

1974 Mustang II sold in huge numbers because it was "all new and improved with European style and handling" and offered better gas mileage than the old models.

Dark days indeed for all the domestics.....

tayl0rd · August 2005

Can you imagine the fits everyone would be thowing when their muscle car wasn't giving the 'promised' results?

No need to imagine. Does everyone remember the '99 Mustang Cobra? It was such a mess that there was only, maybe, two '00 Cobras produced since they had to spend so much time and money making the '99s right. I don't even think those two '00 Cobras made it to the public. If someone does have one, he/she would be stupid not to put it in a giant plastic bag inside an air-conditioned, dehumidified garage for the next 20-30 years!

rorr · August 2005

Exactly.

gottabgto · August 2005

Very interesting and thanks for clarifying - guess I'd mostly have to agree with you.
As for this:
'When I was test driving both GTOs and Mustangs, my seat of the pants told me that some were "strong" runners, and some felt like they were down on power from what I expected.'
I think this is absolutely true and can be seen in some of the recent discussions on the GTO forum.

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

A Chevy dealer by me has a USED 2005 Mustang 5spd manual V8 convertible with only 859 miles for $35,500. Wonder what Chevy the guy traded that in for? Or what he got for the car.

graphicguy · August 2005

From the talk on other Mustang boards, more than a few people bought the Mustang and then turned around and sold it for more than they paid to make a quick buck. Even some dealers took their new Mustangs to the big auctions and got more than they paid by selling to other dealers.

With only 859 miles on it, I'd bet that Mustang was an "auction" piece. Or, someone with more dollars than sense, decided what they really wanted wasn't a Mustang but a 'vette.

gxpgtodanman · August 2005

"From the talk on other Mustang boards, more than a few people bought the Mustang and then turned around and sold it for more than they paid to make a quick buck"

I thought of doing that, but didn't feel like taking the chance, oh well. I missed out. The dealers by me only seem to have V6 Mustangs in stock on their lots.

Ford Mustang (2005) vs. 2005 Pontiac GTO

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles